So Ideology Now Takes A Back Seat To Science?

That was the promise candidate Barack Obama made. He claimed that wasn’t the case during the Bush administration and under his leadership, science would be ascendent. They’d just let the chips fall where they may.

Well, except maybe in the EPA when a key to an ideological agenda item – declaring CO2 a pollutant – didn’t have the science available to support the desired result. Read the executive summary of this suppressed report. It outlines why the science doesn’t support the desired agenda item of declaring CO2 a pollutant. Of course without such a declaration, legislation for pollution standards for autos as well as this abomination of a cap-and-trade bill before the House today are without basis.

The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) “is an individual who is not a scientist.” Neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin’s analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, “significant new research” related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA’s reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data, and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won’t be different than in the past.

It appears, at least in this case, that science isn’t of interest to the ideologues on the left any more than it was to the ideologues on the right. That may be an “inconvenient truth”, but there it is. Again we find what was promised by Obama during the campaign, just like transparency and fiscal responsibility, were “just words”.

I was going to post this regarding the question on health care, but for some reason that posting is not allowing comments. So, let me post my thoughts here, despite it being somewhat “off-topic.”

If you read the first question posed to The Clown™ and his answer on the ABC “Socialized Medicine Obamathon,” you will see what a deceitful dissembler he is. A doctor asked what he (The Clown) would do if this new “system” did not allow his wife, or his children, to get the best medical care because of rationing that such socialized government systems have. How did The Clown™ answer? His grandmother, “who raised me,” needed a hip replacement while she was dying of cancer. Nice story, but that didn’t answer the question.

It was a sort of Mike Dukakis moment. “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you demand an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” And Dooky said, “No, I wouldn’t, Bernard, and you know that I have been against the death penalty for all of my life…it’s not a d-d-d-d-deterrent, and…”

And THAT was the end of Dooky’s chances of being President.

Only now it was, “Mr. President, if your wife and children needed emergency care not covered in your wonderful socialized medical plans for all of us, what would you do?”

And, like Dukakis before him, The Clown™ blew it big time.

If anyone were watching, you kind of get the feeling that The Clown™ would make sure that he and his family would get the best medical care money can buy, and to hell with the rest of us.

“If you read the first question posed to The Clown™ and his answer on the ABC “Socialized Medicine Obamathon,” you will see what a deceitful dissembler he is. A doctor asked what he (The Clown) would do if this new “system” did not allow his wife, or his children, to get the best medical care because of rationing that such socialized government systems have. How did The Clown™ answer? His grandmother, “who raised me,” needed a hip replacement while she was dying of cancer. Nice story, but that didn’t answer the question.”
*********
Agree. A smart opposition (*wishful thinking*) would use that quote to crucify him and destroy his plan. If Baracky wants to create conditions where my family members may be told to go ahead and die quickly so as not to use precious resources, it’s only fair that his wife and kids face the same threat.

“Agree. A smart opposition (*wishful thinking*) would use that quote to crucify him and destroy his plan. If Baracky wants to create conditions where my family members may be told to go ahead and die quickly so as not to use precious resources, it’s only fair that his wife and kids face the same threat.”

Sorry, but The Clown™ is not so stupid as to endanger his own family in the quest to socialize this country. Maybe he could toss many Democrats under the bus wheels; hell, he might even toss Joe “I Cannot Shut My Goshdarn Mouth” Biden and his entire clan under the bus. But the actual family members of The Clown™? You folks have to be kidding if you believe that if his wife, Mrs. Clown™, or the Kiddy Clowns™, were sick with a serious illness that was not covered by the Karl Marx-like ObamaCare℠ Disaster, he wld simply take them to a doctor outside of the plan, or head to some other country surreptitiously and get them the care they need there. And to hell with the old hypocrisy game, which The Clown™ is really good at playing.

Consensus is not an acceptable methodology in hard sciences. It is used only for social sciences.
The scientific method requires that theories be able to be proved or disproved. Although proving tha tthe theory is wrong is generally easier.
Consider something so esoteric and inherently difficult to prove like general relativity. Eintstein postulatd a set of experiments that if they failed would disprove his thoeries. These experiments passed and general relativity is still with us.

Why is it that the AGW crew are unable to follow the scientific method and provide such verification mechanisms. They don’t because they cannot prove a single lemma from their theory, not a one.

The entire science of AGW is built on unproven and incorrect computer models. Experts are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

Why do liberals pose questions in such a way as to infer anyone who disagrees with them is both ignorant and hate filled?
If we don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming we must hate the environment, are you sure your brush is broad enough there Captain Planet?